The_Lone_Apple t1_j24idt5 wrote
I don't know what they mean by blighted but I do know that if I'm exiting Penn Station I try to get myself out of that press of bodies, fast food dumps, guys selling crap from a table and cheap suitcases vomiting out of narrow stores before someone tells me I'm looking at them the wrong way or a taxi hits me.
LightningLilac t1_j24jnnq wrote
Yeah blighted seems harsh but compare it to the newly updated area around grand central and it looks pretty bad in comparison.
The_Lone_Apple t1_j24lif1 wrote
I'm just not a believer that a street that looks like a cacophony of filth has much that's sacrosanct. If people have great memories of eating hot dogs on a corner, then they'll have those memories forever.
Mustard_on_tap t1_j254psd wrote
“Cacophony of filth”. That is the description I’ve been looking for to describe this area. I hate having to go here. Skeve central.
Nuke it from orbit comes to mind too.
Amphiscian t1_j25regr wrote
it's also the name of my grindcore band
ImperatorRomanum t1_j25guim wrote
It's the only way to be sure.
Shreddersaurusrex t1_j26huyy wrote
Ripley has entered the chat
Vilnius_Nastavnik t1_j2abwy2 wrote
I've been in and out of Penn at least a thousand times and all of the memories that stick out involve vomit or low-speed car accidents.
lsm4 t1_j266u05 wrote
The area south of penn is a dump. North, not so bad
Shreddersaurusrex t1_j26hx2c wrote
It’s not too bad, bit of a desert/vacuum though
kickit t1_j24pfj2 wrote
It might be worth reading the article, because redeveloping the area will fix none of the problems you describe, which are mostly congestion and "fast food dumps".
"Blighted" here has to do with the quality of the buildings, and per the article, less than 30% of the buildings here qualify. Otherwise, people live and work in those buildings, and one of the biggest reasons for redevelopment is to extract higher rents from the neighborhood. But redevelopment won't do anything about street vendors or the "press of bodies"
honest86 t1_j24yavi wrote
While projects opponents and their lawyer (cited in the article) is trying to frame 'blighted' narrowly on the quality of the building to support their legal argument that the area isn't blighted the definition of blight in NYS does allow for a much broader interpretation that can include land use and other conditions.
The_Lone_Apple t1_j24t7rr wrote
Then maybe better quality buildings that don't look like they've been caked in filth for 100 years might at least make it seem nicer.
kickit t1_j251umx wrote
Forgot to include this, but the article also mentions that one of the plan's ringleaders is one of the principle owners in the area, and has let the properties deteriorate.
> Some properties with faulty conditions or unresolved violations are owned by Vornado Realty Trust, the neighborhood’s largest landowner, which the state has said will develop some of the new towers. Vornado, a public company that is among the city’s largest owners of offices, has accumulated more than a dozen properties in the area over the last 20 years, holding onto them in anticipation of a larger redevelopment. Of the eight sites that would be redeveloped, Vornado owns four of them and a share of another.
> Over the years, state projects aimed at eradicating blight have been criticized for rewarding developers whose properties had seemingly contributed to it . . . the lawyers noted that Vornado’s chief executive, Steven Roth, once boasted about letting a Manhattan property languish on purpose to spur the government to offer financial assistance.
zipzak t1_j25qssi wrote
yes, just want to add that a huge reason the neighborhood is so nasty is because its covered in vornado sidewalk sheds, dirty sidewalks they are responsible for cleaning, and empty vornado realestate
fattythrow2020 t1_j2715bq wrote
Why are they bringing up a building that Vornado waffled over 30 years ago? He didn’t even get government assistance to build it — he demolished it and waited until he signed a big anchor client to make rebuilding worthwhile.
You also removed an important part of that quote that you replaced with ellipses — that the previous statement is not the case here.
Those lawyers (and you) are grappling at straws. Just rebuild the area. It is a piece of shit that annoying people are protecting in the name of a handful of decrepit buildings.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments